This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author josiahcarlson
Recipients akuchling, alexer, calvin, giampaolo.rodola, janssen, josiahcarlson, klimkin, loewis
Date 2009-03-31.22:06:39
SpamBayes Score 4.4044937e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1238537200.97.0.460878119265.issue909005@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Just to make this clear, Aleksi is proposing close() should be called 
automatically by some higher-level functionality whether a user has 
overridden handle_close() or not.

With the updated asyncore warning suppression stuff, overriding 
handle_close() for the sake of suppressing the warnings should no longer 
be necessary.

While I can see that it would be *convenient* if close() was 
automatically called, the method is called "handle_close()", and there 
is an expectation about the implementation thereof.  For example, you 
call socket.recv() in handle_read(), you call socket.send() in 
handle_write(), call socket.accept() in handle_accept().  Is it too much 
to expect that a user will call .close() inside handle_close()?

The answer to that last question is a "no", btw.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-03-31 22:06:41josiahcarlsonsetrecipients: + josiahcarlson, loewis, akuchling, calvin, klimkin, janssen, giampaolo.rodola, alexer
2009-03-31 22:06:40josiahcarlsonsetmessageid: <1238537200.97.0.460878119265.issue909005@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-03-31 22:06:39josiahcarlsonlinkissue909005 messages
2009-03-31 22:06:39josiahcarlsoncreate